Recognition of Sticheropsis as a segregate of Sticherus (Gleicheniaceae, Polypodiopsida) [POSTPONED] #78
Comments
|
There are two different issues here, one of which PPG is qualified to vote on and the other which PPG is not. The PPG community can decide on whether to accept the generic delimitations suggested in this study. However, whether the genus with two species is to be called Sticherus or Sticheropsis is not within the power of the PPG community to decide one way or another. A proposal to conserve Sticherus with a conserved type has been submitted to Taxon. This will be discussed and voted on by the appropriate Nomenclatural Committee, then voted on by the General Committee and eventually their decision will be ratified by the International Botanical Congress. If no decision is reached by the Committees before the upcoming IBC and can be voted on this year, strictly speaking no decision will be reached for another six years (although overturning decisions by these Committees is practically unheard of so names are often adopted once the decisions of the Committees have been published). No matter what PPG votes here on this proposal, the decisions of the Committees and IBC are the only ones that matter and, therefore, the proposal as presented here is rather meaningless. A proposal to recognise the genera as delimited, along with noting that a later decision on the conservation proposal will lead to clarity on the names of the genera, would be appropriate but the simple fact is that until the Committees and IBC rule on the conservation proposal, the correct name for the genus with two species is Sticherus whether we like it or not. Incidentally, the genus of two species is not only in Australasia as stated in the BJLS draft paper because S. truncatus is found in western Malesia and continental SE Asia. If it is not too late and has not already been corrected, note also that there are inconsistencies in the gender being used for Sticheropsis in the BJLS draft paper. |
|
I have been looking into the ramifications of this proposal some more and another angle has occurred to me. Only when the Sticherus Conservation proposal is approved by both the Vascular Plants and General Committees, and the report of the General Committee is published, can the change be said to take effect under the terms of the International Code of Nomenclature (Art. 14.15). This date is extremely important as if the genus Sticheropsis is published before the report of the General Committee (assuming they approve the conservation proposal), then Sticheropsis will be illegitimate under Art. 6.4 and will not become legitimate even if the proposal is approved. At that point, regardless of how the vote of PPG proceeds and how established use of the name Sticheropsis has become, the genus with two species will have no name under the rules of the ICN. The only way to rectify that would be to wait until after the General Committee has published its report before Sticheropsis is formally described, or to describe a new genus to include the illegitimate name Sticheropsis, or to apply for Conservation of Sticheropsis. This will all be a lengthy process and hence this proposal to PPG is extremely premature. |
|
As noted above, the Code and Committees will ultimately determine the correct names for these two clades. However, there has been some desire/discussion to apply names in PPG in anticipation of their eventual acceptance, realizing of course that such acceptance may not materialize. The aim, I think, is to avoid another Aglaomorpha/Drynaria situation and also, more generally, to do less harm. Since there is no name for the larger clade, the alternatives would presumably be to recognize a non-monophyletic Sticherus or to describe a new genus for the larger clade and implement that (when published) in PPG. Maintaining the larger clade as Sticherus and recognizing the smaller clade as a new genus would seemingly do less harm. The critical issue, as I see it, is the timing issue raised in the second comment...with Sticheropsis being illegitimate as currently typified. Presumably, this issue could be avoided if the new genus was typified on the other species? We would then be left with a situation more analogous to that for Dennstaedtiaceae (#45). |
|
I agree with Eric’s comment. It is crucial to realize the distinction between the two issues. PPG aims to clarify the recognition of taxa based on our understanding of their phylogenetic history. The names applied to the taxon accepted have to follow the roles of the Code. In most cases, this is not a challenge but in some cases we may not feel happy with the name selected by applying the standard priority role. It is not the task of PPG to make a decision on this although we can determine the preference of the PPG community. At the end, a proposal has to be submitted to and agreed on by the nomenclature sessions held at the IBC. Eric mentioned a good example, the Drynaria/Aglaomorpha issue. In PPGI we accepted Aglaomorpha as the name for this clade because it is the oldest available name. The proposal to conserve Drynaria against Aglaomorpha was submitted to and agreed on during the nomenclature session held at the IBC in Shenzhen. Thus, Drynaria status is now clear. Lepisorus is another interesting case. Several genera now considered to be part of Lepisorus have priority. Some years ago, a proposal was submitted to conserve Lepisorus. The question here would be to clarify the decision of the proposal during the nomenclature session at the IBC in Melbourne. Of course, we hope to avoid messy situation but we have to accept the procedures in place to handle diversions from the priority roles set in the Code. Luckily, the next IBC is happening soon and thus decisions will be made on the majority of the issues that challenge us at moment. Thus, I recommend we focus on the question if we accept the separation of the taxa whereas the decision on the name utilized will be only resolved during the IBC. Of course, we can express our preference but it is not the decision by PPG alone but the decision of the nomenclature session. |
|
I do not think we are disagreeing at all over the fundamental issue here, which is on whether we recognise these two groups as different genera or not. What I am pointing out is that PPG has no role to play at all in what these genera are to be called and we should not be asked to vote on this proposal as it is currently worded. Harald highlights the Aglaomorpha/Drynaria issue. When these genera were synonymised, Aglaomorpha became the correct name of the genus. When the conservation proposal was passed, Drynaria became the correct name. A while ago, PPG was asked to vote on this but actually, Drynaria is now the correct name and no amount of input from us would change that. The PPG vote was rather meaningless. I actually have little doubt that the proposal to conserve Sticherus with a conserved type will pass but I want to clarify what will now happen. The proposal has been submitted and will be voted on by the Vascular Plants Committee. They will forward their decision to the General Committee who will also vote on it. The General Committee will publish their decision. On that date, and only from that date, can a new name be proposed for the genus with the old type of Sticherus in it, i.e. the genus with two species in Asia/Australasia. The decision must be ratified at the IBC following the report of the General Committee but really this is only a formality. Do note that this process takes at least months and often years to be completed and although it is not impossible it could be completed by the Madrid IBC, I think this is unlikely. Nevertheless, we only need to wait until the report of the General Committee which will be long before the next IBC in six years (I would presume). As Sticheropsis is not yet published at all, we are currently effectively being asked to approve what is technically an invalid name. If Sticheropsis is published before the report of the General Committee, then we are being asked to vote for what will be an illegitimate name. And as the paper is said to be already accepted in Bot. J. Linn. Soc., I would imagine that is very likely. Any indication that the genus Sticheropsis includes the type of Sticherus laevigatus, even as a synonym of S. truncatus, will make Sticheropsis illegitimate - choosing a different type will not fix that problem. Only exclusion of Sticherus laevigatus from Sticheropsis will fix the problem and I assume that is not an option. I would argue that as currently formulated, the only option on this proposal is to vote no or we would be in danger of undermining our credibility which should be to formulate a stable taxonomic framework for pteridophytes. If the PPG proposal were to be reframed to be voting on the principle that Sticherus be split into two genera with the New World taxa in the genus Sticherus, following the conservation proposal in Taxon, and the Old World taxa in the proposed genus Sticheropsis which should remain unpublished (and perhaps even cited as Sticheropsis ined. or "Sticheropsis") until the General Committee has published its report, then that is another matter. The Bot. J. Linn. Soc. paper would then have to be revised to prevent the publication of Sticheropsis as an illegitimate name if the intention is indeed to have it published before the General Committee's report. If the paper is published soon in its current form, then in the future the genus would need a new name and that name could not be Sticheropsis (because a conservation proposal for it would almost certainly fail)! How would we then reconcile a PPG vote in favour of Sticheropsis with the reality that the name would be illegitimate? |
|
Dear PPG Fellows, Thank you for all this discussion regarding the Sticheropsis proposal. It is clear that we have to deal with the Sticherus paraphyly issue, and a new genus is needed. We chose the “less harm pathway”, by seeking the conservation of Sticherus with a different type. Avoiding more than 90 new combinations. In fact, it is beyond PPG scope to decide on those types of proposals, since it is in power of the Nomenclatural Committee in the IBC. However, as pointed by Harald Schneider, one of the mains goals of PPG is to reflect the phylogeny of ferns and lycophytes. That was our goal with the Sticheropsis proposal. It is policy of the PPG to accept and vote on such cases with pending voting in the IBC. We had similar cases, where new genera were voted and approved by the community. It is not good for us to use different criteria with similar cases. I personally contacted the PPG organization asking instructions about my case and proposition. I especially would like to thank David for reading our work and providing notes. I made a mistake by choosing the type of Sticheropsis same as Sticherus before the appreciation of my proposal in the IBC. However, selecting another type will, in fact, solve this issue. Regardless of the inclusion of S. truncatus in the new genus. Fortunately, I still have time to change this issue, since we are still revising the manuscript proofread. So, I contacted the Editors in the BJLS, and the actions to solve this situation are in their course. Therefore, we will not have an illegitimate genus. As soon as possible, I will upload the new version of the manuscript here. I thank the community once again for all this discussion and clarifications regarding my work. I put a lot of effort, alongside my coauthors, to contribute with the taxonomy , biogeography and evolution of Gleicheniaceae. It is not easy to do and keep doing this in Brazil! Best wishes, Lucas |
|
Hi Lucas, I think we all understand the clear intention of your proposal and your desire to provide a solid framework for the species concerned. I want to make only one quick comment. Under Articles 52.1 and 52.2, changing the type species of Sticheropsis will not allow for the legitimate publication of Sticheropsis if you continue to delimit the genus in the same way. This is because the type of a name which should have been taken up is still being included in the genus, i.e., the type of S. laevigatus. One option you may consider in your BJLS paper is to make it clear that although you are proposing the genus Sticheropsis you do not consider it to be validly published in the paper (see Art. 36.1). The benefit of this is that it leaves open the option of validating it as soon as the General Committee has issued its report (assuming it is favourable). If you follow this route, you establish your intention to use the name and because the name has not been validly published, it is consequently not possible for it to be illegitimate. A note to explain this process in the BJLS paper would be useful. You should note too that as the genus would not be validly published, neither would either of the combinations you propose. |
|
I think Lima et al. can still designate Gleichenia milnei Baker as the type of their new genus Sticheropsis so that Sticheropsis can be validly published, although it will be superfluous upon publication. A later conservation proposal to conserve Sticheropsis might succeed considering the lengthy process of the General Committee's official report and the need of names in the fern community. The last GC report came out six year after the Shenzhen IBC. The next one might be years too after the Madrid IBC. |
|
Quick reply to Li-Bing. The General Committee publishes its reports much more often than every six years and once they have reported on the proposal to conserve Sticherus with a conserved type, Sticheropsis could be published. If Sticheropsis were to be validly published now, and consequently illegitimate, I think there would be almost no chance that the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants would vote to conserve it if a later application were to be submitted. This is because what they are tasked with doing is promoting stability. They would see that the timescale has been too short for the name to have become established and that the cause of the instability was entirely preventable. |
|
One procedural thing about the IBC--the deadline for submitting mail ballots has now passed. There are always a limited number of nomenclatural proposals submitted too late for the relevant committees to consider them in time for the Congress that are only discussed on the floor. The conservation proposal for Sticherus did make it into Taxon about a month before the end of March 2024 deadline for proposal publication, but has not to-date made it through both nomenclatural committees. Thus, there is a chance that this proposal will not be resolved at the IBC session this year. Even if it is discussed at the in-person nomenclatural session, the resultant vote could be to refer it back to committee. There could be considerable delay if that happens, as these committees take a while to re-constitute themselves after an IBC because of changes in membership. I personally am supportive of the proposal to PPG. However, I would still vote to delay action on this item until the type of Sticherus becomes fixed, either through acceptance or rejection of the conservation proposal, and the pertinent nomenclatural combinations are published. Basically, PPG is stuck--there currently is no validly published name to account for those species that are not in the same part of the overall lineage that includes the type of the name Sticherus if that genus is split into two monophyletic groups. PPG also cannot recognize an unpublished name, as the act of doing so would constitute publication of a nomen nudum and render that invalid name unavailable for any future use. |
|
I got clarification from Karen Wilson, the chair of the IBC general nomenclature committee. Any published nomenclatural proposals that do not make it through review by both nomenclature committees prior to the IBC are deferred until after the Congress. A proposal that is supported by both committees can be treated as tentatively accepted (and thus guide the publication of suitable nomenclatural combinations). However, it is not codified until the next IBC. |
|
Quick clarification, a name that has not been validly published, such as a nomen nudum, does not exist for nomenclatural purposes and can be used in the future. As long as the conditions for valid publication are not met, using the name in PPG will not preclude it from being validly published with the same name later. A problem may arise, however, if someone later does validly publish it, thereby making the name illegitimate if done before the Committees have published their recommendations. But in order for anybody to make an informed decision on this, we shall need to know what amendments the authors of the BJLS paper have made before we vote. |
|
Given the uncertainties regarding this proposal, I am going to leave it open for now, but not put it on the ballot yet. |
|
Dear PPG II fellows, As David said, some points should be clarified to make it easier to the community to vote on this genus proposal.
Therefore, the PPG may recognize the Sticheropsis, and we will have a solution for Sticherus paraphyly until the approval of my conservation proposal in the next IBC. |
|
Dear Lucas and PPG,
Thanks for the informative message. I have been a member of the General Committee (I am stepping down next month), which I should have mentioned before you went through the effort to contact Valéry. However, unless I am missing it, the name Sticheropsis is not yet published. That alone requires that PPG not formally recognize it. As a group, we have not approved recognition of other fern genera that were either unpublished or for which the majority of the new combinations had not been made (as in some of the African Cheilanthes segregates that were proposed to PPG). It would be inconsistent to approve recognition of this particular genus at the present time. It can always be done later, once the committees have gone through their deliberations. But this is preferable to the committees ruling against the proposal and PPG having accepted what would then become an illegitimate generic name.
Be well,
GY
George Yatskievych, Ph.D.
Botanist, Curator: Billie L. Turner Plant Resources Center, University of Texas at Austin
Main Bldg Rm 127, 110 Inner Campus Dr, Stop F0404, Austin, TX 78712-1711 U.S.A.
Tel. 512-471-5904; ***@***.******@***.***>
From: lucaslima1618 ***@***.***>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2024 2:05 PM
To: pteridogroup/ppg ***@***.***>
Cc: Yatskievych, George A ***@***.***>; Comment ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [pteridogroup/ppg] Recognition of Sticheropsis as a segregate of Sticherus (Gleicheniaceae, Polypodiopsida) (Issue #78)
Dear PPG II fellows,
Thank you once again for bringing Sticheropsis nomenclatural issue to discussion. It is a challenging nomenclatural situation, and it is very helpful to count on the keen eyes of our community.
As David said, some points should be clarified to make it easier to the community to vote on this genus proposal.
Germinal Rouhan (coauthor in the BJLS paper) and I contacted Valéry Malécot, member of the General Committee of Nomenclature to clarify this issue. With their advice, we are moving forward with the following:
1. The Sticherus conservation proposal published on February 21, 2024, will not go to the Committee for Vascular Plants (NCVP) before the end of 2024 and to the general committee (GC) before 2025, and formal validation will happen at the next IBC.
2. We must consider that our Sticherus proposal is to be applied, otherwise (if we do not use it ourselves) that becomes an argument for the NCVP or the GC to rebut the proposal directly (because this would suggest that we are not in line with our proposal). I think it is in the best interest of the PPG community to seek stability on a worldwide spread genus like Sticherus and avoid more than 90 new combinations.
3. Regarding the type of Sticherus: in the coming publication at BotJLinnSoc, We designated the type of Sticherus: "Typus: S. gracilis (Mart.) Copel. (Gen. Fil.: 27. 1947) (Mertensia gracilis Mart.), typ. cons. prop." (as in the Taxon proposal), which informs readers that there is a conservation proposal in progress, and which has no effect on the validity of the genus Sticheropsis.
4. Regarding the type of Sticheropsis: We choose Sticheropsis milnei -instead of S. laevigatus (currently the type of Sticherus)- as the type of Sticheropsis, avoiding any possible problems, raised by several colleagues, regarding the type of Sticherus and Sticheropsis.
5. Regarding one of David's concerns, the inclusion of S. truncatus in Sticheropsis will not be against articles 52.1 and 52.2 of the ICN. Because the proposal of conservation of the type of Sticherus, Sticheropsis will not be illegitimous, since the proposed type of Sticherus (Sticherus gracilis) is not included, and both species can be included in Sticheropsis.
Therefore, the PPG may recognize the Sticheropsis, and we will have a solution for Sticherus paraphyly until the approval of my conservation proposal in the next IBC.
-
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#78 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A62P7PXHYVKUNHRQQJK6ZBLZGH74ZAVCNFSM6AAAAABGCXPXTWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCNJVGM3DQNJUGE>.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>>
|
|
Dear George Yatskievych, Thank you for your comment. I saw your reply email and wanted to provide some clarification. The paper describing Sticheropsis has been accepted and will be published in the next few days. When we vote on this proposal, likely next month, the genus will have been published. Thank you. Best wishes! |
|
Dear Lucas, I perhaps misunderstand what you are saying, and it may not be possible to fully comprehend the ramifications until I have seen the text of your paper, but I still have some concerns. I have no problem at all with your points 1 and 3. On your point 2, if the two committees used an argument that PPG not using Sticherus and Sticheropsis was a reason to reject the proposal, the committees would be violating Recommendation 14A.1 in the ICN. They would not. On your point 4, as you are describing a new genus, you can choose as the type any of the included species. However, on points 4 and 5, do note that until (assuming they do) the General Committee has published its recommendation to accept the proposal to conserve Sticherus with a conserved type then the type of Sticherus remains S. laevigatus not S. gracilis and, under Art. 52.1, regardless of which species you make the type of Sticheropsis, if you include the type of S. laevigatus within Sticheropsis, then Sticheropsis will be illegitimate. Please see Art. 6.4, Ex. 4 for a directly analogous example. |
joelnitta
changed the title
|
Dear PPG II feloows, The manuscript with Gleicheniaceae classification was published in BJLS. Regarding Sticheropsis, as mentioned in a previous comment, I followed the guidance of Valéry Malecot and Germinal Rouhan. I believe the proposal is now ready for a vote. Thank you all for your valuable contributions to this discussion. Best wishes, Lucas |
|
Dear Lucas,
As has been discussed earlier, the timing of your paper is unfortunate. It should not have been published until after the proposal to conserve the generic name Sticherus with a new type was voted on by the pertinent nomenclatural committees. The fact is that Sticherus laevigatus (as your paper noted, a synonym of S. truncates) is still the acknowledged lectotype of the genus until a proposal to alter this has gone through review. Thus, Sticheropsis as published is illegitimate because it contains the type of an earlier genus. As was also noted by others in this discussion, once a genus is illegitimate that name is no longer available in the future, regardless of the vote on the proposal. You will want to republish the nomenclatural portion of your paper with a different generic epithet if your proposal is approved by the two nomenclatural committees in the future. As such, there is no way for PPG to approve the reclassification.
Sorry,
GY
George Yatskievych, Ph.D.
Botanist, Curator: Billie L. Turner Plant Resources Center, University of Texas at Austin
Main Bldg Rm 127, 110 Inner Campus Dr, Stop F0404, Austin, TX 78712-1711 U.S.A.
Tel. 512-471-5904; ***@***.******@***.***>
From: lucaslima1618 ***@***.***>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2024 8:51 AM
To: pteridogroup/ppg ***@***.***>
Cc: Yatskievych, George A ***@***.***>; Comment ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [pteridogroup/ppg] Recognition of Sticheropsis as a segregate of Sticherus (Gleicheniaceae, Polypodiopsida) [POSTPONED] (Issue #78)
Dear PPG II feloows,
The manuscript with Gleicheniaceae classification was published in BJLS.
boae027 (1).pdf<https://github.com/user-attachments/files/16378590/boae027.1.pdf>
Regarding Sticheropsis, as mentioned in a previous comment, I followed the guidance of Valéry Malecot and Germinal Rouhan.
I believe the proposal is now ready for a vote.
Thank you all for your valuable contributions to this discussion.
Best wishes,
Lucas
-
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#78 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A62P7PWHZF7U2B3R2RFQQCTZOD7FLAVCNFSM6AAAAABGCXPXTWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENJQGM3TMMJQGU>.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>>
|
|
Dear PPG Fellows, We obviously made a mistake in our interpretation of recommendation 14.1 that cannot truly apply to Sticheropsis. This latter name is indeed illegitimous, and we will have to publish a different generic name, and as a consequence we withdraw this proposal here in PPG. Best wishes, Lucas |
Author(s) of proposal
Lucas V. Lima, Thaís E. Almeida & Alexandre Salino
Name of taxon
Sticheropsis
Rank of taxon
Genus
Approximate number of species affected
2
Description of change
A phylogenetic study based on genomic-scaled dataset, with extensive geographic sampling, recovered Sticherus as paraphyletic (Lima et al. in Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 184: 107782. 2023). The clade called Sticherus s.s, including S. laevigatus, the type of the genus, and Sticherus milnei (Baker) Ching was recovered as sister to a larger clade comprising Stromatopteris and Gleichenia, which in turn is sister to the remaining species of Sticherus (referred to here as the aff. Sticherus clade; Lima et al., l.c. 2023). Sticherus s.s. is characterized by having an anisotomic branching pattern, whereas the species in the aff. Sticherus clades are characterized by having an isotomic branching pattern. The aff. Sticherus clade has a pantropical distribution with most of its species occurring in the Neotropics (about 54 species), whereas the Sticherus s.s. clade (S. laevigatus and S. milnei) occurs only in Australasia (Holttum, l.c.; Chinnock & Bell in Fl. Australia 48: 148–162. 1998; Gonzales &Kessler, l.c.). Divergence time estimates suggest that the split between Sticherus s.s. from the Gleichenia+Stromatopteris+aff. Sticherus clade occurred around 114–117 mya, with the latter diverging from Stromatopteris and Gleichenia at approximately 111–113 mya (Lima et al., l.c. 2023).
Reason for change
The paraphyly of Sticherus presents a significant nomenclatural challenge when aiming to recognize monophyletic genera. Under this circumstance, the name Sticherus would be restricted to just the two the species in the aff. Sticherus clade: S. truncatus (type) and S. milnei. Consequently, all remaining species in the aff. Sticherus clade would require a new generic name. Aiming to minimize the nomenclatural changes (avoiding 91 new combinations), we proposed the conservation of Sticherus with a new type Sticherus gracilis, a species from the aff. Sticherus clade. To accommodate S. milnei and S. truncatus, we proposed a new genus, Sticheropsis, in a paper accepted in the Botanical Journal of The Linnean Society. The conservation proposal was published in Taxon 73(1):305-306 (Lima et al. 2024) (available below).
Accepted version of BJLS manuscript:
Accepted_Lima et al Gleicheniaceae Classification_BJLS_2024.pdf
Taxon proposal:
TAXON-2024-Lima-3006 Proposal.pdf
Gleicheniaceae Phylogenomic:
Lima et al 2023.pdf
Reference(s) for publication of the name
Lucas Vieira Lima, Thaís Elias Almeida, Michael Kessler, Germinal Rouhan, Shuichiro Tagane, Vinícius Antonio de Oliveira Dittrich & Alexandre Salino (2024) The classification of the fern family Gleicheniaceae, with the description of a new genus, segregated from Sticherus. Botanical Journal of The Linnean Society. DOI: 10.1093/botlinnean/boae027
Lucas Vieira Lima, Thaís Elias Almeida, Michael Kessler, Germinal Rouhan & Alexandre Salino. (2024) Proposal to conserve the name Sticherus (Gleicheniaceae) with a conserved type. Taxon 73(1):305-306. DOI: 10.1002/tax.13119
Lucas Vieira Lima, Alexandre Salino, Michael Kessler, Germinal Rouhan, Weston L. Testo, Caio Suzart Argolo, GoFlag Consortium, Thaís Elias Almeida (2023) Phylogenomic evolutionary insights in the fern family Gleicheniaceae. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 184: 107782. DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2023.107782.
List the numbers of any related issues
No response
Code of Conduct
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: